601. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #63193 by the great teapot on August 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm

A question for the religious.

Would you rather live in a society without god or a society without law courts and a police force.

I wonder (he jokes , for the thick amongst us) would be the most law abiding.

602. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #63172 by the great teapot on August 13, 2007 at 11:35 am

What does the world look like without god.

Well mine looks like claudia Schiffer, bloody fantastic!

603. Believe it or not: the sceptics beat God in bestseller battle

Comment #62881 by the great teapot on August 12, 2007 at 7:25 am

I tried to buy a bible after reading the God delusion. I looked everywhere in the Humour departments under G but to no avail.

604. Richard Dawkins, TV evangelist

Comment #62879 by the great teapot on August 12, 2007 at 7:08 am

"In this sense, while Dawkins's intentions are doubtless well meant, the rise of the atheist movement he symbolises could do more than the alternative spiritualities he disparages to threaten the fragile cohesion of our societies"

Is he suggesting that we all should believe in something that does not exist because it is the only thing that bonds us all together?
Is he refering to the cohesion in Northern Ireland or Isreal.

Also have you noticed how Richard needs to eat food, just like the pope does? Come to think of it has anyone ever seen them in the same room together?

605. Science and the Islamic World

Comment #62806 by the great teapot on August 11, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Is Al Hathan that chap who made his great discoveries while incaserated for some trivial reason or other.
Giskard, he was the first person to realise that sight came from something outside the body ie light and was not a sort of radar system emitted from the eye.
It is amazing how everything is obvious when someone else points it out. When he observed this fact it was not that elementary, no other self conscious being on the planet had noticed it before and recorded it.
However further insights from the arab world do seem thin on the ground. but I am no expert so I may stand corrected.
A british TV personality/ ex politician (Kilroy silk) almost ended his career for voicing your opinion. Even if what he said may have been true.

606. Science and the Islamic World

Comment #62769 by the great teapot on August 11, 2007 at 10:06 am

All IS revealed in the Koran, but only to believers who have the eyes to see.
see the link below, infidels
http://www.speed-light.info/angels_speed_of_light.htm

607. Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Comment #62183 by the great teapot on August 8, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Is this really only the 3rd poast.
It really is amazing that such rational thinking produces nothing. The wee flea and his nonsense creates mountains of h-rse--0-i

608. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #57247 by the great teapot on July 18, 2007 at 4:35 pm

clearly there are a lot of addicts here.
This thread is feeding an addiction for sure.
Morality Paul, leave it alone. we are nice because we want to be liked and people to treat us nice. if we act like arseholes we increase the chances of someone knocking the shit out of us.
It ain't philosophy it is the law of the jungle.
It isn't cast in stone and nor does it need to be. Get to grips with it.

609. The New New Atheism

Comment #56626 by the great teapot on July 16, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I wish this fashion for Atheism would end so we can all go back to believing in things without a shred of evidence.
Atheism seemed fun at first but now I can see a great void in my life approaching that not believing in things without reason simply can no longer fill.
What is the next fashion, can anyone advice me,I don't want to appear out of touch.

610. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56439 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Re comment 79
Yes, but we still all understood what she meant even if written down it is utter piffle. It is strange isn't it how we correct and fill in the gaps etc to get the gist, no matter how poorly stated the question. Thank mmm.

611. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56437 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Rtambree

At last an optimistic voice.
I believe that if left to our own devices religion will disappear completely. With good education and no totalitarianism etc religion will all but dissapear. In the Uk, inspite of the fact 30 years ago atheism was a semi dirty word, now saying you "believe" is like standing up and admitting to being a tiny bit nuts. So long as this is a free choice it is virtually an unstopable trend. No god is to Monotheism what monotheism is to polytheism. Who would have thought 20 years ago communism would be almost obsolete.
It will happen in the next 2 or 3 generations.

612. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56431 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Demon haunted world?
wtf?
Oh yeah It's coming back to me now. That nerd with the colander on his head. Where's that delete button.
Jodrell bank ? Isn't that cockney rhyming slang?

613. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #56427 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 5:51 pm

Downunder has the penny dropped yet with the Monty Hall question.
I inwardly digested it yesterday (sober). How wrong can you be. Perhaps I am wrong about god as well.
Ik hoop niet.

614. LA Church 'agrees abuse pay deal'

Comment #56422 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Is deliver us from evil on the net, if so I'll watch it.But with a critical eye.
The notion that the priesthood creates paedophiles by stunting the sexual growth of the priest is a very good point. I wonder if the church is aware of this possibility and if so has it tried to do anything to prevent it, I suspect the denial would be too strong. And even if the priests were aware of the phenomena would that prevent them falling victim to it.
Phil Rimmer - it does deny them the moral higher ground I agree. But I wanted to remind everyone that doesn't give us the moral high ground either.
But you are both right,

615. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56415 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 4:53 pm

I have to say I was a little dissappointed with the repetetive nature of Harris, Hitchens (in Hogwarts dining hall) and Dawkins et al, but 1Town reminds us all that just because we heard it 6 months ago doesn't mean the rest of the world did. If they repeat, it is because their act is honed down to the best sound bites, adlibbing can produce more misses than hits. Experts have probablly done this repetiton on the after dinner circuit since time began (circa 4000 BC) it is only the interweb that has exposed it.
Billy Connelly once said everyone thinks they are a great comic because they made everyone laugh with their best man speech, but the real comedian has to do it 40 nights in a row with the same script.. (loosely quoted.)
Speaking of Billy, if the 10 th commandment were "don't deep fry everything" for humanitarian reasons can we give Scotland a special exemption?
Is the talk on Einstein available?

616. LA Church 'agrees abuse pay deal'

Comment #56405 by the great teapot on July 15, 2007 at 4:14 pm

No one thinks less of religion than me but do we have to expose the human frailities of the church in such a gleefull manner.
We all know religion is man made, we all know priests are men, untouched by god. There is enough wrong with religion without gloating over the fact cruel people hide under its wing.
This is shamefull enough for them without atheists using it as a stick.
Just the fact that religion is make believe twaddle is enough for me to find it derisible.
The way I see it is these men are imposters, if you really believed there was an omnipotent being watching your every move would you do that. These child rapists are bigger atheists than you and me.

617. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55627 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 6:32 pm

No
If you switch, you have still only 1 in 3 chances.
You can't claim credit for your first choice which also may be the correct one- but you have just discarded it.I can only choose one of the 2 remaining which is still actually a choice of 1 in 3.
Even if the puzzle is a play on the wording.
If it was possible that my original choice was correct and nothing suggests otherwise all options present equal chances.
If I could choose both of the other 2 then my chance would double. But I can only choose 1.
What the proposal is, I think, actually saying is that if you never make a definite choice you stand more chance of winning. Doesn't sound quite so counter intuitive put like that.

618. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55622 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 6:04 pm

Probability does n't work like that.
You can't revise figures with hindsight and you still only have one choice. The previous choices must be discounted as if they never existed.
This reminds me of a question on talksport last footaball season.
What is the probability that Southampton will meet Portsmouth in the next round of the FA cup.
There were 32 teams left,our esteemed talk sport presenters were convinced the chance was 1 in 16 because the 2 teams could draw each other either at home or away. The fact that they could meet the other 30 teams home and away seemed not to occur to them
They consulted the betting expert who corrected them, there is in fact a 1 in 15 chance he said- problem solved the expert has spoken- no amount of non expert opinion could convince them otherwise- I despair.

619. The US map of faith

Comment #55611 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Johnny O

Given the time they have taken to build that church in barcelona I doubt even tieInterceptors inflated cijfers.

620. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55604 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Oh boy.
I am going to finish this bottle, go to sleep and think about it tomorrow.

621. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55597 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 4:20 pm

I can see the answer is 1000/6.3 ish mm because the %change in radius is still actually very small as is the % change in circumference.
But I still can not see why my chance of wining a goat is not the new figure of 50% for both changing or not changing my mind.

622. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #55590 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 3:39 pm

Dr Benway,

Was this a blind date ....until the lightbulb came on.

Why do the chances increase if you change your mind?

623. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #55586 by the great teapot on July 11, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Darwin2,
If they find out what you're taking, you're going down for a long time.
Oh I see from your previous comments you believe you are already.
Good luck in your next parole appeal.

624. Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women

Comment #54126 by the great teapot on July 5, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Religion sucks, because it is nonsense.

625. The Panel

Comment #53419 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 11:32 am

This shows that the people taking part have a life and don't spend all day swotting for a physics A level they took 30 years ago.

626. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53416 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 11:04 am

PaulEmecz
This post on another thread may be of interest to you.
Thanks cbhg21808 ( Do you have a brother in manchester the name seems familiar)

Moral Relativism begins with the proposition that there are no objectively definable absolutes and no absolute truths, within any moral premise. Thus, the assumption is that everything is potentially relative and can be regarded has having potential actuality, as an aspect of mankind's 'moral' character.

Moral Relativism assumes that any moral question can be judged based on socially excepted premises and even the whim of the moment, simply because it is impossible to define a universal moral framework that relates to mankind as a whole and the individual as a unit.

The main claim for Moral Relativism then, is that 'anything goes' because there is nothing to 'go at'. In other words, if Moral Relativism is a true proposition, then any action is potentially moral, because nothing is immoral relative to mankind. Indeed, if everything is considered as relative and there are no universals with regard to morality, then by definition everything becomes relative and nothing can be seen as immoral within that framework.

If it were really true that Moral Relativism was the common standard and one could not identify objective moral universals... then to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife are both relative positions, because there are no absolutes in the context of Moral Relativism.

For Moral Relativism to have even a grain of truth, one would have to start from the premise that mankind had no capable way of identifying its own individual nature - its physical, psychological and philosophical nature...

But the fact is that mankind can understand the 'atomic' nature of the individual. The individuals physical, psychological and philosophical nature can be understood and indeed is being understood as mankind's knowledge progresses. It is because we can understand our nature more and more and are able to frame that nature within a universal context of morality, that allows us to conclude the Moral Relativism is a false proposition.

If it were genuinely true that we could not identify moral universals, then it would also be true that we could not create moral standards that protect individuals from the initiation of force. It is only because individuals are beings of a certain kind and behave in a certain way; that allows us to define a moral framework based around that behavior.

Coming back to the point of 'whether to stab a man with a knife or not stab a man with a knife' - and why we can identify the moral action as apposed to the immoral one. The reason mankind as a whole can agree on such a moral standard as "the initiation of force against a fellow man is morally wrong" is exactly because of mans nature (of course there are exceptions that would not be seen as initiating force, one may stab another in self-defense for example... maybe in a war situation).

An example of just one aspect of an individuals nature, is the emotion called empathy. We know that serial killers and tyrants are able to kill and even torture because they lack empathy. Empathy is basically the internal feeling or emotion that "I would not like to do to others, that which I would not like done to myself". Thus, if we see a stabbed man or woman in the street we empathize with their predicament... We essentially vicariously put ourselves 'in their shoes' and we have a deep welling up of empathy. The very fact that we are able to identify universal moral standards is because those standards have real concrete definable attributes such as empathy (we would most likely feel sympathy in the 'stab victim' situation too).

The fact is that, the more civilized a society becomes... The closer that society is to understanding it's own nature and how to incorporate that nature within a moral framework. Indeed, some societies are more civilized than others. Thus, we know that genital mutilation and honor killings are not good strategies for human beings, but in many Muslim countries such actions are being carried out. The moral standard in such countries has not shifted to the same degree that it has in more civilized western societies.

Another real concrete definable attribute is happiness. We recognize happiness as a universally good character trait... A happy individual is a rounded individual. Indeed, above all else... The degree by which an individual is happy is the degree by which one can measure the universal standard of moral stability. The happiest societies are known to be the healthiest societies. Actions such a genital mutilation and honor killings do not lead to happiness and stability. Indeed, ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali a Somali women who escaped from her Muslim past, in which she suffered terrible beatings and genital mutilation. She escaped Somalia and a forced arranged marriage, to live in the West and has become a successful author and public speaker... Ask her if she is happier now, I have little doubt of her reply.

Once you realise that Moral Relativism is a non-concept and that morals can be universally defined, based around mankind's innate nature, then the need for a a first mover or God to fill the 'moral relativistic' void; shrinks to zero.

627. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53412 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 10:48 am

chbg21808

That's your opinion.

I hope you don't mind, I have posted your comment on the inferior design thread. There is a god botherer on there who finds the idea of absolute morality very important. (for some reason I can't understand)

628. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53368 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 4:45 am

Dianelos
Has your world view led you to your belief in God?
or , as I suspect, does your belief in God lead you to your worldview. Answer truthfully now.

629. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53364 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 3:12 am

All I need now is for Yorker to tell me that this website is once again worthy of his visits and I will be in Nirvana.

630. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #53363 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 3:09 am

Alovrin
Thank you for your permission.
I await your next command.

631. Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton

Comment #53358 by the great teapot on July 1, 2007 at 2:48 am

Does Sharpton not know that the s comes before the k in asked.

632. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53265 by the great teapot on June 30, 2007 at 12:43 pm

PaulEmmecz
Are you a deist who does not believe in a personal god. Before I go further can you please answer that for me.

633. God Hates the World

Comment #53210 by the great teapot on June 30, 2007 at 5:40 am

There is a Pratts Bottom near me, just off the A20/M25 junction.I also sit on one everyday, but I am not letting Billy photograph it.
(If only Wee Flea wasn't on holiday Billy. How pleased he would be to see the peurile banter)

634. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53197 by the great teapot on June 30, 2007 at 3:45 am

PaulEmecz.
Just like your God, if I am bigger and more powerfull than the individual that comitted the crime against my sensibilities I am, just like your God, in a position to say "you shouldn't have done that- I don't like you doing that"
How does that differ.
I would assume, though I don't know for sure, almost every atheist thinks this. Might is right.
That after all is the God principle.
The lack of no absolute morality requires no coming to terms with,it is, to me at least,self evident. But then I don't look at the world through rose coloured glasses.

635. God Hates the World

Comment #53187 by the great teapot on June 30, 2007 at 2:56 am

Re Shuggys comment quoting

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16

Those of us who doubt gods love should think on this. Why it brings a tear to my eye.
His ONLY son.
He gave us his ONLY son. think on that. he had only one son and he sent him to die for us.
WTF? Why are they comparing the sacrifice of the son of an omnipotent god who can create the world to that of the human sacrifice of our children. The two things are completely incompatible, but that doesn't stop them doing it, because they lack the intelligence to see the asymmetry of the comparison.
Surely god sacrificing "his son" is the equivalent of me sacrificing my toenail clippings.

This is a pet hate of mine. Watching the likes of Mcgrath drool as he thinks fondly of what his loving god is prepared to do for him makes me wretch.

636. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #53181 by the great teapot on June 30, 2007 at 2:16 am

We use morals to provide stability in our lives.
What has a god got to do with that.
There are no absolute morals. Morals differ from time to time and place to place. I bet they are not even converging to an absolute, as people like to think they are. So what.
The existence of absolute morality is the lamest argument for god (that is taken seriously) I have heard, and it is up against fierce competition.

637. Sally on Sunday with Alister McGrath

Comment #52868 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 9:55 am

A word of warning, if you choose to listen to this you will be exposed to the travelling willburys.

638. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52848 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 8:08 am

I am currently siting in a consulting Engineers office pretending to design some piles and ground beams while watching Richards video. If I could conduct a straw poll, I can't do it now -that will give the game away, I suspect almost 100 % of my colleagues neither believe in strange ghosts in the sky nor reject out of hand the theory of evolution. {I know this from office chatter).
Although i do live in the UK not the USofA.

639. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52835 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 7:08 am

Perhaps we should change our careers to escape the ridicule.:P ( on second thoughts with my spelling ability perhaps I'll stick with Engineering)
Where does the :P originate from Robert?

640. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52808 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 5:57 am

The meaning doesn't change, only the people being ridiculed.
PS I would have typed LOL after my last comment.
But at my age it doesn't feel right.

641. Lecture on Neo-Darwinism

Comment #52786 by the great teapot on June 28, 2007 at 4:47 am

"Why is it always Engineers?"

Richard I am shocked.
Try substituting the word Engineer with Blacks,Gays,Atheists etc. Doesn't sound so funny now does it. I really expected better from you.

642. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52282 by the great teapot on June 26, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Alternative sounds nicer than troll atleast.
It strikes me as a little unfair to consign mind rebel to the alternative thread dump. He always offers an honest opinion and never says anything just to irritate. (unless I have misjudged).
If he sympathises with witches more power to his elbow. Perhaps he should substitute the word witch with Thor etc. Sam wasn't attacking witches afterall.

643. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52270 by the great teapot on June 26, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Pewkatchoo,
this is just another version of Richards Thor analogy. No more or less childish.
If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then childish propositions only require childish refuting. This fits the bill nicely.
But good point Bruno we are probably underestimating the stupidity of the average believer.

644. God Hates the World

Comment #51949 by the great teapot on June 25, 2007 at 3:50 pm

The only way to stop this selfpromoting childish nonsense is to ignore it completely. Without the attention it will have no reason to exist and hopefully disappear. It has nothing to do with "sensible" religion whatsoever.

Anyway, enough about the wee flea.

645. In the name of the Father

Comment #51585 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Northern Ireland was a political battle between Ulster Unionists and Irish Republicans. The Terms Catholics and Protestants were just convenient identity markers. No religious leaders, say with the title Reverend, would ever seek to gain from the situation, surely.

646. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51576 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 12:49 pm

If only they would hide it from the kids.

647. His word

Comment #51570 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Logicel

David Baddiel is a very tounge in cheek comedian.
The self effacement of him being behind the zeitgeist etc is his main line. Don't take him too seriously. He is very "laid back".
On the other thread of this post(0r may be the last post) someone mentioned Melvyn Bragg, Now there is a typical "I used to be an atheist but I am alright now" pseudointellectual arsehole who needs some serious criticism.
(by needs serious criticism I mean disabusing of his delusion- he doesn't actually preach religion, oh my god I am a fundamentalist. Help)

648. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51567 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Wee Flea ,the most notorious thing about Xians is their lack of sense of humour, a close second is the scientists (lack of) sense of humour. I don't expect to see you or Richard Dawkins in the humour section of my local waterstones for quite some time.
Wee flea ,when you look in a mirror do you have reflection?

649. His word: Attacking religion can seem like breaking a butterfly on a wheel

Comment #51556 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 11:40 am

@ the wee flea.

I will dispense with politeness, as you have. Which part of the Thor, Tooth-fairy, Teapot, analogy do you not understand you f***w**. Your trivial arguments cut no ice on this website, you represent the infancy of human thought. David Ike means as much to the average thinking Briton as your Jesus Christ. Wake up and smell the coffee.

He's got a pineapple on his head, a pineapple on his head ....
(Bring back fantasy football.- If you google and read this David I loved the show, and would love to see it back- And if you do read this, which is your Team? - I 've always assumed Spurs, I suppose that makes me a racist SOB)

650. His word

Comment #51479 by the great teapot on June 23, 2007 at 5:01 am

All he is saying is religion is the fear of death.
Nothing more.
I think the article was worth while if only for the imagery of the fragile butterfly of religion being broken by the giant wheel of simple logic.